Delhi

StateCommission

A/200/2018

SH. S.K. KHURANA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE PRESIDENT & CEO, IFB INDUSTRIES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments : 01.08.2018

Date of Decision : 09.08.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.200/2018

In the matter of:

 

Shri S.K. Khurana,

S/o. Shri B.N. Khurana,

R/o. FD-38, Ground & First Floor,

Tagore Garden,

New Delhi-110027.                                                                                        .........Complainant

 

Versus

 

The President & CEO,

IFB Industries Ltd.,

Corporate office home appliance Division,

Plot No.IND 5, Sector-1,

East Calcutta Township,

Calcutta, West Bengal-700107.

 

And

 

M/s. Sham Lal Krishan Lal,

Authorized Dealer of IFB Industries,

1/206/28, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt.                                                                        …..Opposite Parties

 

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

Shri O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

          The complainant has preferred the instant appeal case order dated 21.013.2018 passed by District Forum-VII in CC No.548/2014 vide which the complaint was dismissed but without any cost as respondents were exparte.

          The facts giving rise to the complaint were that appellant purchased washing machine manufactured by OP-1 in March, 2012. After purchase of the machine certain defects arose in the machine like  tearing of clothes and heavy movement of the machine endangering the life of the handler.

          The complainant lodged several complaints with the Ops after which the engineer of the OP visited the premises and rectified the defects but the same problem re-occurred. On 23.12.2013 the complainant again lodged a complaint and issued reminder dated 21.01.2014 to either rectify the defects or replace the machine but to no avail. He sent another letter dated 28.03.2014 and then filed the complaint on 12.08.2014. He prayed for  refund of cost of the washing machine i.e. Rs.50,000/- alongwith the interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment, cost of litigation.

          The Ops filed reply but failed to appear later on and file evidence by affidavit. They were proceeded exparte  vide order dated 30.08.2016.

          The complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and written arguments also. After going through the  same the District Forum found that OP-2 was authorized dealer of OP-1, complainant purchased the machine for Rs.47,990/- on 13.03.2012. In reply the Ops stated that complaint was not maintainable and had been filed to mislead the forum to elicit illegal gain.  They stated that they sent technician engineer on 10.09.2012 in response to first complaint made on 07.09.2012, The complainant again lodged a complaint on 10.08.2013 i.e. after about one year of the first complaint. They again sent technician who rectified the complainant’s machine. Complainant signed satisfaction voucher. Job card dated 10.08.2013 was Annexed with the WS.

          The District Forum held that Ops fulfilled their promise of rectification or replacement of defective parts after the  complainant had used the machine for more than one year without complaint. It placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd Vs. Sushil Kumar Gabgotra (2006) 4 STC 644 in which it was held that where defects in various parts of the car are rectified, direction for replacement of the car would not be justified. Similarly in Sushila Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dr. Birender Narayan (2010) CPJ 144 National Commission  followed the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view of the same it was held that complainant was not entitled to refund of the cost of machine.

          We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consumer Protection Act is not meant for making easy money. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

          Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

            One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

            File be consigned to record room.

 

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                    (O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)